50 comments:

Your not stopping your Blog are you? I hope not. You were just getting to the juicy part of the animation process. I'll buy any old manuals that you may have about your cartoons and your inputs on making cartoons. Your information is very valuable.

Hmm, in the first 1970s era off model scan you posted, I didn't even notice the background characters because of the rather unsettling drawing of Bugs on the left. And I don't know how to react to the little stretchy plastic Sylvester towards the end.

Today everything is so "on model" that it lacks any fun or individual creativity whatsoever. In the old days, WB characters had a Chuck Jones style, a McKimson style, a Clampett style, a Friz style...etc (even varied styles within those styles, such as the Scribner style, Melendez style, and so on..). So even the "off-model" versions of those styles in old toys and merchandise were different from eachother and still seemed to involve some sort of creativity. Today there are no varied styles of those characters. There's just a single "Looney Tunes" style, whatever the Hell that is. It's boring.

Who decided, "Hey! Starting now, this is how Bugs Bunny will look today and until the end of time"? Who made that current style? What style IS it, and why did they have to do that?

Yes! I love Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue! It really drives home a strong point about the dangers of drugs - if you take drugs you'll be subjected to the torment of being haunted by horrendously animated little abominations who sing inane songs and prance awkwardly about. Seriously, you're not going to find many people in your life who are opposed to drugs as I am, but when Baby Miss Piggy starts telling you that a good way to say no to drugs is telling your pushy friends, and I quote, "My hamster died," you know that the message being lost. Definitely something to look for, and, thanks to YouTube, it's very easy to find. Be sure not to miss the very important statement from the Bush family that prefaces the feature. It really drives home the effectiveness of Cartoon All-Stars to have an endorsement from a family that's managed to set such examples in staying drug-free.

I wonder what Bugs would look like today if the process didn't get as screwy as it is right now. It's definitely a marvel that you can see the difference between '40s Bugs and '50s bugs, as opposed to the same old Bugs that's been around for 50+ years.

I think some good things are happening,.. I am noticing alot of artistsm going back discovering good stuff from the past..Maybe it's because people see guys like Biskup and baseman and when they see the stuff that inspired those guys they find out about this wealth of great old stuff.. Heck, I go through ebay and save photos of great old objects for my inspirato files,.

I seem to remember artists doing some great merchandising stuff at WB in about '91--getting their designs back with all kinds of teeny details circled by "consumer products" anonymous people as "errors" (edge of Bugs' ruff, tip of ear etc.) with so much red-inked corrections demanded it was outrageous. They were pretty snotty about it, too...it was UNreal, as the people calling the shots weren't artists at all--but they sure did have a style guide to hand, all printed up in a real, hardcover binder!

The character designs for the Looney Tunes today are horrible. They have stiff anatomy which dosen't allow for an good cartoony movement or expressions. They should be loose and fun, not stiff and boring.

I dislike the shading in both Space Jam and Back In Action, BUT I think Back In Action has a tad more coherent design style. I think it is quite clear in the end credits of the movie. Esentially during the end credits they show animatics that look better than the stuff in the movie cause they don't have that annoying shading, and because the animatics only shows LT and not that annoying real actors.

But yeah, what John said, it would be much better if they were actually using Jones' designs.

I love that Mc Kimson-style picture.

I find the majority of those toys quite ugly, though. Both the old and the new ones.

AAAH! Bugs Bunny has eaten a child, and the child is trying to escape by eating through his neck! AHHH!

Yeah, most of the Looney Tunes merchandise is horrible, and for me even those old ones are pretty horrible, although they at least some some charm of some sort, and don't all look exactly the same. I do like those new Golden Collection action figures, and the Rich LaPierre designed greeting cards are gorgeous.

oh man that airbrush shading is awful! The worst is that super clean line work. It removes an artists individual style.

It is really interesting that amercian animation has very strict guidelines to keeping on model (simpsons for example) where as japanese animation over the last few years has gone in the completely opposite direction by letting individual animators almost draw completely different characters. They are allowed to draw and animate in their own style. (kemonozume probably the best example)

At least the WB artists make an EFFORT to be on model(the validity of the model itself is purely a matter of opinion ^_-). I want to take every Disney publicity artist and line them up against the wall for what they do to the Disney characters.

Like the old WB art, at least old off-model Disney art had some charm and no Photoshop.

Oh, come on John Kricfalusi. You know you're doing a bit of manipulation here. Sure almost all the examples are correct, but why are all the 'Modern toys' example plush toys (and a child in a costume is not a toy)? And be honest, that 'Bugs' with the drum looks pretty bad-you probably only like it because it looks like he's threatening Tweety with his sheathed erect penis. And I wont insult the felt bugs, because you probably got it from a dear friend or relative (which they made in their pre-adolescence).

Anyway here's an illustration of some 'modern' cartoon characters done off model (intentionally). Not created by me I should add. You like?-->

I don't know why it is, but it seems like the better the cartoons, the worse the merchandise looks - and vice-versa.Historically, "bad" Looney Tunes art is almost redundant. With some exceptions, there's practically been no other kind - even during it's heyday in the 1940's.

I work at the Consumer Products division at Warner's, and I can verify the following: American licensees want Bugs to look smug, and licensing executives are eager to accommodate them. Whenever I give him a different expression, the artwork invariably gets changed.

It's especially frustrating because Bugs was such a fully-dimensional character, with a wide range of expression and nuance. If Bugs was REALLY only smug in the cartoons, we wouldn't be merchandising him at all - because no one would still be interested in him.

When I first got to WB, Daffy was almost always drawn angry. I said "He's DAFFY Duck, not ASSHOLE Duck!" This got me thrown out of the meeting - the beginning of a trend.

I refused to draw Daffy angry, and I think I finally won that fight. "Asshole" Duck has faded in recent years - but "Smug" Bunny refuses to go down quietly. The best we've ever been able to do is try to make it appealing AND smug - not always easy, or possible.

The European market has been inching back towards the Clampett look of the characters recently - I think that's partially due to my influence, actually, because those are the designs I use - but some American execs seem to think that look won't sell as well. They claim to have the figures to back it up.

They recently tried to turn Bugs into a Batman-like superhero called "The Black Carrot" (I kid you not!) I planted my heels and flat out refused to draw it. The concept was drawn by another hand, and died an ignominious death - but not before I was bounced from several more meetings. (As of this morning, I haven't been fired yet. I don't draw Baby Looney Tunes either)

I don't know whether to blame the public or the executives or the licensees - I have no figures to back up what I THINK would sell better, or what looks more appealing - at least to my eyes.

WB marketing created the "gay" Tweety recently, which I also refuse to draw, so they give it to an in-house Asian artist to do. I think he thinks that Tweety really is gay. Unfortunately, it sells like crazy! The worst stuff I've seen comes from South America.

I think it's funny that you posted Cartoon All-Stars to the rescue. :) I just posted that on the bulletin board on myspace over a week or so ago. The thing was so awful I wanted to take drugs rather than go through it again!

"I refused to draw Daffy angry, and I think I finally won that fight. "Asshole" Duck has faded in recent years - but "Smug" Bunny refuses to go down quietly. The best we've ever been able to do is try to make it appealing AND smug - not always easy, or possible."

I think you have won the fight over smug Bugs as well. Recently I have been seeing various LT products with the characters resembling the 1940s designs from Bob Clampett.

I think the modern designs reached their Nadir when WB put out their own DRAWING BOOK on how to draw in such crappy bland styles.

Jiohn, you should've put up some of the newer VHS and DVD Looney Tunes covers. You're never going to find a more concentrated source of crappiness than that.

BTW, has anyone seen those Hallmark Looney Tunes cards where Bugs, Daffy, Porky, Tweety look like they came out of a Clampett cartoon. If if you don't like them, you've got to admit that they look tons better than that Space Jam and Baby Looney Tunes fluff.

Fresh out of school in 1992 I got a job at a licensed T shirt companyin NYC. I was hired for my cartooning ability for their WB,Nickelodeon,Hanna Barbera,etc licenses. My first project was.. Ren and Stimpy!I kept trying to convince my boss to just get screen captures of those awesome gory closeups of gucky fingernails and Ren on the toilet and Stimpy in underwear... Funny, they never made those. They did make my "Log" shirt! For the first 3 years it was great to work on these characters and run wild and DRAW them. We would get corrections from the lincensor offices but, we had a lot of freedom and created a lot of cool shirts. Then something changed...and jaws of that style guide binder's clips clamped down on my throat and it just wasn't fun anymore. We were told to take one head put it on another body..don't change the hands... just dress them up like paper dolls. I hung in there until 1997. Then I left feeling like an art whore. I loved, I mean really loved these characters and for a long time after couldn't stand to see them. Now, Thank God for Boomerang and my 7 year old, I'm falling in love again. Having been so choked by the style guides, I actually see some poses as key frames when I watch modern WB cartoons, and it depresses me.

Hey, JohnK, good comments as always [as Phil hendrie's RC Collins caharcter might say]. I totally agree with your comment regarding your own boredom and inablity as drawing bland characters, that you're not able to do that stuff as you did in the 1970s.

Neither can I or would I, and I sure don't know, or don't think anyone does, know of anyone who WOULD draw animaiton so soulless willingly.

Re:Filmation--this regards the Archies. Glad you posted those magaqzxine covers..Betty and Veronica were rivals, for instance though neither the Filmation show nor even some of the comics, including a few covers you'd posted, would show this, but I'd love to have gone back in time, and to have the Betty and Veronica rivalry shown a lot, and keep the meddling suits--to paraphrase another rotten show--outta the way. Ah, but alas, by latge 60s, the time mentioned by me here, such was not to be. Also, good point JohnK., on Joe Barbera having the deceny to hate the same things [as REN woudl say!] as you did, regarding the shows's lack of quality in the sevneties.

Finally, MikeF, good to know you draw the Looney/Merrie charactera and that you foyght against the post 50s versions of the characters.[GAY tweety..UGH! Cranky Daffy..dougle UGH! BTW I TOO have seen those older style greeting cards!! When going to get a card for my teen niece's high school graduation, and she has a LOT more brains thna any animated teen character after Judy Jetson.]

I have a 1949 valentine card that has two rabbits that look like they were drawn by the same illustrator that drew Bugs Bunny at that time, except these are brown rabbits, not grey. It says Hallmark on the back and is copyrighted MCMXLIM (1949) to Hall Bros, Inc. Anyone have any thoughts?